Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas ranch

[Rob L 3,811]

So does this mean anything in regards to immigration reform or Dacia/dapa

I terms of the court?

Until you have a Ninth Justice any ruling that is not at least a 5 3 decision will have no effect in terms of law. Essentially any issue brought before the court that is controversial will be considered but will not impact the law of the land. Because DAPA and DACA is being considered in this session and a judgement is expected in June, this is a concern

Edit sorry I need to correct myself. with a 4 4 tie, what ever the lower court ruling was ( the court that last touched it) will stand and it will become the law of the land.

http://lifehacker.com/why-is-the-empty-supreme-court-seat-such-a-big-deal-1759198091

The Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program was announced by President Barack Obama in November 2014 as part of his plan for immigration reform. The program attempts to grant deferred action to undocumented immigrants who are the parents of a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident.

United States District Court[edit]

On February 16, 2015, United States District Judge Andrew S. Hanen, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division, issued a preliminary injunction against an executive action taken by President Barack Obama that would have given Illegal immigrants legal status and protection and let them apply for work permits.^[why?][1][2] The U.S. government on February 23, 2015 asked the Court to lift the injunction while it appealed his ruling to the5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans;^[3][4] it also proposed that that the Court could issue a partial stay that would allow every state except for Texas to start implementing DAPA.^[4]

In an opinion and order published on April 7, 2015, Hanen denied the Government’s request to stay the preliminary injunction.^[5][6] He affirmed the earlier ruling that the plaintiff states had standing;^[7] cited statements made by President Obama regarding the applicability of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) that DHS employees would “suffer consequences” if they failed to follow the DHS Directive;^{[further explanation needed][8]} denied the DOJ request to apply the injunction only to Texas;^[9] and addressed^[vague] the issue of irreparable harm both in regards to the federal government and to the states.^[10]

On the same day, the Court issued a separate order criticizing the federal government for granting three-year periods of deferred action to 108,081 individuals between the announcement of DAPA and the preliminary injunction,^[11][12] despite earlier statements made to the court by the Department of Justice that no action would be taken on these applications.^[13]The Court reserved the right to impose sanctions against the federal government's counsel for misrepresenting facts.^[14]

United States Court of Appeals[edit]

The Obama Administration appealed the order for a preliminary injunction and asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans to stay the district court's injunction pending appeal.^[15] On May 26, 2015, the administration's motion for a stay was denied by a three member motions panel with one dissent, meaning that the government could not implement DAPA until the Fifth Circuit ruled on the appeal of the injunction order itself.^[16][17][18] Arguments were heard on an expedited basis on July 10, 2015. The ruling came on November 9, 2015, with a three-member panel of the Fifth Circuit affirming the district court's preliminary injunction, over one dissent.^[19][20]

The divided circuit court affirmed the preliminary injunction and ordered the case back to the district court for trial.^[21] Judge Jerry Edwin Smith, joined by Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod agreed with the district court that Texas has standing because of the cost of issuing drivers licenses to aliens, and that President Obama’s order violated the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.^[21] The majority made a new finding that the Immigration and Nationality Act “flatly does not permit” deferred action.^[22] Judge Carolyn Dineen King dissented, arguing that prosecutorial discretion makes the case non-justiciable, and that there had been “no justification” for the circuit court’s delay in ruling.^[22]

Edited February 17, 2016 by Rob L

[lostinblue 1,989]

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Every time I read this topic title, I read "Senior US Supreme Court ***hole Justice Antonin Scalia."

Edited February 23, 2016 by Killary

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

So it would appear our VP thinks we should wait. I bet you will not see that clip on the evening news

[Dashinka 24,512]

I terms of the court?

Until you have a Ninth Justice any ruling that is not at least a 5 3 decision will have no effect in terms of law. Essentially any issue brought before the court that is controversial will be considered but will not impact the law of the land. Because DAPA and DACA is being considered in this session and a judgement is expected in June, this is a concern

Edit sorry I need to correct myself. with a 4 4 tie, what ever the lower court ruling was ( the court that last touched it) will stand and it will become the law of the land.

http://lifehacker.com/why-is-the-empty-supreme-court-seat-such-a-big-deal-1759198091

The Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program was announced by President Barack Obama in November 2014 as part of his plan for immigration reform. The program attempts to grant deferred action to undocumented immigrants who are the parents of a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident. United States District Court[edit]

On February 16, 2015, United States District Judge Andrew S. Hanen, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division, issued a preliminary injunction against an executive action taken by President Barack Obama that would have given Illegal immigrants legal status and protection and let them apply for work permits.^[why?][1][2] The U.S. government on February 23, 2015 asked the Court to lift the injunction while it appealed his ruling to the5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans;^[3][4] it also proposed that that the Court could issue a partial stay that would allow every state except for Texas to start implementing DAPA.^[4]

In an opinion and order published on April 7, 2015, Hanen denied the Governments request to stay the preliminary injunction.^[5][6] He affirmed the earlier ruling that the plaintiff states had standing;^[7] cited statements made by President Obama regarding the applicability of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) that DHS employees would suffer consequences if they failed to follow the DHS Directive;^{[further explanation needed][8]} denied the DOJ request to apply the injunction only to Texas;^[9] and addressed^[vague] the issue of irreparable harm both in regards to the federal government and to the states.^[10]

On the same day, the Court issued a separate order criticizing the federal government for granting three-year periods of deferred action to 108,081 individuals between the announcement of DAPA and the preliminary injunction,^[11][12] despite earlier statements made to the court by the Department of Justice that no action would be taken on these applications.^[13]The Court reserved the right to impose sanctions against the federal government's counsel for misrepresenting facts.^[14] United States Court of Appeals[edit]

The Obama Administration appealed the order for a preliminary injunction and asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans to stay the district court's injunction pending appeal.^[15] On May 26, 2015, the administration's motion for a stay was denied by a three member motions panel with one dissent, meaning that the government could not implement DAPA until the Fifth Circuit ruled on the appeal of the injunction order itself.^[16][17][18] Arguments were heard on an expedited basis on July 10, 2015. The ruling came on November 9, 2015, with a three-member panel of the Fifth Circuit affirming the district court's preliminary injunction, over one dissent.^[19][20]

The divided circuit court affirmed the preliminary injunction and ordered the case back to the district court for trial.^[21] Judge Jerry Edwin Smith, joined by Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod agreed with the district court that Texas has standing because of the cost of issuing drivers licenses to aliens, and that President Obamas order violated the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.^[21] The majority made a new finding that the Immigration and Nationality Act flatly does not permit deferred action.^[22] Judge Carolyn Dineen King dissented, arguing that prosecutorial discretion makes the case non-justiciable, and that there had been no justification for the circuit courts delay in ruling.^[22]

I think SCOTUS can also order reargument for cases where it is evenly divided. Not sure if that will happen, but it may be an option.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Oddly enough the muddy left ditch seems not be supporting the administration, for the first time ever

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I think we all know the odds of Obama not putting somebody in office who is either a minority or a woman or both are about .02%. Maybe he can go out saying he nominated the first trans justice or the first handicapped one or something. Anything he can do to show how progressive he is.

What I find funny about this line of thinking is, no matter what President Obama does, it's an issue. If he appoints a white person, we'll hear he doesn't care about black people. If it's a woman or a minority, it's affirmative action and some well deserving white person has been robbed of a job.

Is it too hard to fathom that maybe a minority/woman could just be the right person for the job?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Perhaps Justice Scalia should have delayed his death, or could offer to come back to life until March 2017 after the next President is inaugurated? If so, we might have the same situation. Otherwise this is a very different set of circumstances than the one referred to by Biden in the video clip. I don't think hamstringing the Supreme Court is a very good idea, and it would be for over a year at this point if no appointment attempt is made by Obama.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Oddly enough the muddy left ditch seems not be supporting the administration, for the first time ever

And all of a sudden the right gives a ####### about what Joe Biden thinks. Gotta love politics.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Perhaps Justice Scalia should have delayed his death, or could offer to come back to life until March 2017 after the next President is inaugurated?

He could always vote from the grave, as at least one person has suggested.

Edit to add: perhaps the only time a conservative has endorsed voting from the grave!

Edited February 25, 2016 by Killary

[ready4ONE 5,400]

And all of a sudden the right gives a ####### about what Joe Biden thinks. Gotta love politics.

The Supreme Court justice Biden was referring to delayed his retirement to avoid the trouble Biden was referring to. That Supreme didn't have the bad taste of dying so far from the next election.

[Rob L 3,811]

The Supreme Court justice Biden was referring to delayed his retirement to avoid the trouble Biden was referring to. That Supreme didn't have the bad taste of dying so far from the next election.

You were expecting this crowd to appreciate a nuance like this?

[Dashinka 24,512]

And all of a sudden the right gives a ####### about what Joe Biden thinks. Gotta love politics.

I don't think it is really that. This is just an example of the hipocracy from the left and their total disregard for it.

[Jacque67 7,328]

I don't think it is really that. This is just an example of the hipocracy from the left and their total disregard for it.

Lost in translation...

[smilesammich 10,727]

i totally disregard hypocrisy all the time.